M25 speed cameras clockwise from J10
Discussion
I am now playing this waiting game; last night, heading home after my flight, J10, no restrictions, above 70 but below 90 and very light traffic. There was a 3 series tanking it towards the sliproad just ahead/beside me and I saw them get flashed a split second ahead of me.
Guess we'll see what comes; I've always wondered if anyone has been done by these cameras other than when the restrictions have been switched on (a colleague did get a NIP for speeding in a restricted 40); guess I'm gonna find out.
Guess we'll see what comes; I've always wondered if anyone has been done by these cameras other than when the restrictions have been switched on (a colleague did get a NIP for speeding in a restricted 40); guess I'm gonna find out.
The Mad Monk said:
R8VBV said:
it's just a money make scam.
I don't understand how you can call it a 'scam'?Surely, it would only be a scam if, for example, the limit said 60, but you got a NIP for exceeding 50?
If the sign says 50, and you get a ticket for exceeding 50, that's not a scam, is it?
eybic said:
I thought it had to be posted in 14 days not received so you've still got a few days to wait imho.
No. The legislation clearly states receipt. See RTOA 1988 Section 1.The problem for most people is proving that service was not effected in time.
Peter Gidden was in the fortunate, but rare, position of being able to do so.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Case went all the way to the High Court, so is binding on lesser ones.
Gidden v Chief Constable of Humberside
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/292...
The Mad Monk said:
R8VBV said:
it's just a money making scam.
I don't understand how you can call it a 'scam'?Surely, it would only be a scam if, for example, the limit said 60, but you got a NIP for exceeding 50?
If the sign says 50, and you get a ticket for exceeding 50, that's not a scam, is it?
speedking31 said:
or me the problem is that you have no way of defending yourself if you believe that you did stick to the limits. There are so many changes, you cannot record them, and 2 weeks later you cannot verify what the limit was.
I usually record in my diary if I think I may have been over the limit while observing a mobile scamera van ahead. Then wait 14 days, but recently changed my car, so could be a long wait.flemke said:
Without presuming to speak for R8VBV, I think he (or she?) may have meant that the enforcement of speed limits is supposedly done for the sake of safety but, when done robotically and thus with no recognition whatsoever of the circumstances, safety cannot be assessed, in which case the explanation for motorway speed cameras must be to raise revenue.
A cynic might suggest that a "smart motorway" is only effective if people pay attention to the speed limits, and so it pays to switch the cameras on for a period whenever people start to habitually ignore them. Frik said:
flemke said:
Without presuming to speak for R8VBV, I think he (or she?) may have meant that the enforcement of speed limits is supposedly done for the sake of safety but, when done robotically and thus with no recognition whatsoever of the circumstances, safety cannot be assessed, in which case the explanation for motorway speed cameras must be to raise revenue.
A cynic might suggest that a "smart motorway" is only effective if people pay attention to the speed limits, and so it pays to switch the cameras on for a period whenever people start to habitually ignore them. Part of the problem with the legitimacy of such methods is that in this country the setting of speed limits and the enforcement of speed limits have lost credibility.
Whether it be entire towns that suddenly become 20 mph everywhere or entire counties' rural road networks getting dumbed down from NSL to 50, or camera vans and trafpol speed traps setting up shop not where exceeding the speed limit would be most dangerous but to the contrary where exceeding the speed limit would be safest - which is precisely why many drivers tend to choose the latter to do so - it is plain that too many authorities are pursuing their own political agendas rather than basing their actions on facts and common sense.
Thus when it comes to something that ought not to be subject to licence endorsement, but that rather depends on courtesy, unselfishness and social maturity, the proposed rationalising method will get little respect because the rulers of speed limits deserve no respect.
Edited by flemke on Tuesday 28th April 02:23
Frik said:
flemke said:
Without presuming to speak for R8VBV, I think he (or she?) may have meant that the enforcement of speed limits is supposedly done for the sake of safety but, when done robotically and thus with no recognition whatsoever of the circumstances, safety cannot be assessed, in which case the explanation for motorway speed cameras must be to raise revenue.
A cynic might suggest that a "smart motorway" is only effective if people pay attention to the speed limits, and so it pays to switch the cameras on for a period whenever people start to habitually ignore them. Guybrush said:
...having driven perfectly safely for years at higher than the stupidly low limit. It suggests limits are too low,
You quite obviously have superior driving skills over and above those of ordinary human beings.That is how you have managed to stay safe all these years.
I am afraid I cannot respond to the latter part of your post as it disintegrated into a language which I didn't recognise. It certainly wasn't English. My apologies for that.
The Mad Monk said:
Guybrush said:
...having driven perfectly safely for years at higher than the stupidly low limit. It suggests limits are too low,
You quite obviously have superior driving skills over and above those of ordinary human beings.That is how you have managed to stay safe all these years.
I am afraid I cannot respond to the latter part of your post as it disintegrated into a language which I didn't recognise. It certainly wasn't English. My apologies for that.
I think he just wrote "which" but meant "while".
Let him who is without sin cast the first adjective clause.
flemke said:
That is a valid linking argument, but is it proportionate to give someone a hefty fine and a 3 points endorsement for potentially, in theory and, at most, marginally contributing to traffic congestion several miles ahead?
If you decide to use the stick, it needs to be a big enough to scare people. lbc said:
speedking31 said:
or me the problem is that you have no way of defending yourself if you believe that you did stick to the limits. There are so many changes, you cannot record them, and 2 weeks later you cannot verify what the limit was.
I usually record in my diary if I think I may have been over the limit while observing a mobile scamera van ahead. Then wait 14 days, but recently changed my car, so could be a long wait.Frik said:
flemke said:
That is a valid linking argument, but is it proportionate to give someone a hefty fine and a 3 points endorsement for potentially, in theory and, at most, marginally contributing to traffic congestion several miles ahead?
If you decide to use the stick, it needs to be a big enough to scare people. IMO, the stick would be big enough to persuade people to heed the variable limit, at least when it's being done for traffic flow reasons, if the authorities were to fine people for speeding, without the licence endorsement.
That would be the same sanction as for the violation of a box-junction, which is intended to achieve the same thing. If the authorities were to tighten the enforcement thresholds of the motorway variable speed limits, but limit the sanction to a fine not points, they would get much better compliance than they do now, they would supposedly get better traffic flow, people would understand the purpose just as they understand the purpose of box-junctions, and we drivers would not feel that yet again safe driving was being punished for the sake of somebody's misguided political agenda.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff